From Above The Law comes the Florida case in which the defendant Tyrrell:
[F]irst argues that his “right to due process and right to confront witnesses” was violated because the state did not produce the [sex toys] that were the subject of the July 23 and August 2 orders....Tyrrell contends that the trial court erred in failing to let him show the victim a dildo lineup.
As David Lat at AboveTheLaw.com put it:
If that doesn't violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which guarantees a criminal defendant the right "to be confronted with the [dildos] against him," we don't know what does.Posted by John at March 11, 2008 7:34 PM
The first time the absence of a dildo violated somebody.
Posted by: LawSchoolBlogger at March 12, 2008 11:27 AMHilarious! (-:
Posted by: anirudh at March 20, 2008 11:54 PM